vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. (BAM) and MILLERKNOLL, INC. (MLKN). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $955.2M, roughly 1.1× MILLERKNOLL, INC.). Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. runs the higher net margin — 56.7% vs 2.5%, a 54.1% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. is a Canadian-American alternative asset manager. The company was founded in December 2022 as a spin-off of the asset management operations of Brookfield Corporation, and manages investments across real estate, infrastructure, renewable energy, private equity, and credit markets globally.
MillerKnoll, Incorporated, doing business as Herman Miller, is an American company that produces office furniture, equipment, and home furnishings. Its best known designs include the Aeron chair, Noguchi table, Marshmallow sofa, Mirra chair, and Eames Lounge Chair. Herman Miller is also credited with the 1968 invention of the office cubicle under then–director of research Robert Propst.
BAM vs MLKN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $955.2M |
| Net Profit | $615.0M | $24.2M |
| Gross Margin | — | 39.0% |
| Operating Margin | 84.2% | 5.1% |
| Net Margin | 56.7% | 2.5% |
| Revenue YoY | — | -1.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -29.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.35 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $955.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $974.0M | $955.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $931.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $954.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $873.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $821.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $786.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $615.0M | $24.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $692.0M | $20.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $584.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $507.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $537.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $124.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $373.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 39.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 38.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 84.2% | 5.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 79.1% | 5.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 70.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 61.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 72.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 80.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 56.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 56.7% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 71.0% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 53.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 61.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 47.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.35 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.29 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.6B | $180.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $8.9B | $1.3B |
| Total Assets | $17.0B | $3.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.02× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | $180.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $167.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $480.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $332.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $8.9B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.5B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.5B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.5B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.2B | — |
| Q4 25 | $17.0B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $16.5B | $3.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $16.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.02× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.02× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $562.0M | $64.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $34.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 3.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 3.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.91× | 2.67× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $562.0M | $64.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $745.0M | $9.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $529.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $265.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $567.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $159.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $516.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $34.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-21.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.91× | 2.67× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.08× | 0.47× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.91× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.52× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.06× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.28× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.38× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BAM
| Incentive Fees | $452.0M | 42% |
| Infrastruture | $332.0M | 31% |
| Private Equity | $174.0M | 16% |
| Renewable Power And Transition | $66.0M | 6% |
| Other | $47.0M | 4% |
| Management And Advisory Fees | $14.0M | 1% |
MLKN
| Workplace | $309.9M | 32% |
| Global Retail Segment | $275.8M | 29% |
| International Contract Segment | $170.9M | 18% |
| Performance Seating | $101.1M | 11% |
| Lifestyle | $52.9M | 6% |
| Other Products | $44.6M | 5% |
